Elements Of A Crime CASE LAW

The judge gave 3 hypothetical examples of when D's conduct would be involuntary- they all invloved driving: 

• Being stung by a swarm of bees whilst driving and loosing control. 
• Being hit on the head by falling debris whilst driving and lossing control. 
• Having a heart attack or siezure behind the wheel. 

An act is involuntary if it is done by the muscles without any control of the mind eg. a siezure, a muscle spasm. 

Case Facts: Defendent worked for the railway. A man was killed on the railway line when D did not close the gate. 

The Omission: failing to close the gate.

Why was it his duty?: It was part of his job contract to close the gate and he didn't. 

Case Facts: A father and his partner killed his child by starving her. He had successfully raised several children before her. 

The Omission: Failed to look after the child. 

Why was it his duty?: Parents have a legal responsibilty to look after their child. 

Case Facts: A man and his girlfriend chose to take care of his elderly sister rather than send her to a care home. The sister died of poor treatment/negelect.

The Omission: He negelected her despite saying that he would assume the duty to look after her.

Why was it is job?: He volunteered to take care of her eventhough he didn't have to.

Case Facts: A police officer watched a fight break out and a man died from the injuries he sustainted in the fight. The defendent made no effort to stop the fight, finished his shift and clocked off. 

The Omission: He failed to break up the fight. 

Why was it his duty?: As a policeman, his job is to protect the public and he failed to do that. 

Case Facts: A man dropped a lit cigarette and started a fire. When he woke up, he noticed the fire and simply moved to another room in the house. The house burnt down.

The Omission: He failed to act eventhough he caused the dangerous situation. 

Why was it his duty?: It was his fault the fire started, so should have raised the alarm. 

Case Facts: A man was stopped by police and subjected to a pat down. The offiicer doing the search asked him to reomve any sharps from his pockets. He failed to do this and the officer ended up getting stabbed with a needle containing and unknown substance and had to get many injuctions to insure her safety. 

The Omission: Failing to remove sharps.

Why was it is duty?: He had an obligation to remove the sharps but failed to do so, and by doing that he had a duty to act because he created the dangerous situation. 

Case Facts: Defendant kidnapped his pregnant girlfriend (V) and ended up in a stand-off with armed police. D used V as a human shield and fired at the police. The police returned fire and killed V in the process. 

This is case law for Factual Causation. The test we use is the 'But For' test.

For Example: But For D using his girlfriend as a human shield, V would not have gotten shot and died.  

This proves that D was the V's cause of death, eventhough he did not actually shoot her. We know he is the cause of death because if the V had been kept inside she would have been safe. 

Case Facts: D decided to poison his mother so that he could gain his inheritance. His mother took a sip of her poisoned drink, and coincidentally died of a heart attack that was unconnected to the poisoning. 

But For Test: But for D poisoning his mother, she still would have died. 

In this case, the defendant is NOT the factual cause of death as the sentence above doesn't make sence. He would not be found guilty for murder, but would instead be found guilty for Attempted Murder. 

Case Facts: D and V were fellow soldiers who got into a fight. D stabbed V from behind with a bayonet, and punctured V's lung. Medics were called to the scene and did not know that the lung was punctured. They saw V struggling to breathe and performed CPR on V, which tore open his lung. V died. 

This is case law for Legal Causation. The test we use is the 'operative and substantial' test. This test looks for whether D's conduct was a significant cause of the consequence to V.

D puncturing V's lung was a critical injury, one that V would have most likely died from even if the medics hadn't have done CPR. This means that D was an Operative and Substantial cause of V's death, so therefore he is both factually and legally responsible. 

D would be found guilty of murder. 

This case gave us the De Minimus Rule.

"D's actions must be more than the minimal cause of the consequence"

This means that D's actions must be severe enough to have an actual effect on the consequence. This ties into the Legal Causation (Operative and Substantial) test. 

Case Facts: D shot V in the stomach. V had almost recovered from the gunshot wound in hospital, when a doctor gave V antibiotics. V had an allergic reaction to the drugs, and the doctor wrote a note saying he shouldn't be given any more. Another doctor gave V even more antibiotics. V went into cardiac arrest, so the doctors pumped v's body with 6 times the amount of fluid any person should have in the body. 

The doctors treatment was Palpably Wrong (obviously/incredibly wrong). 

D did not directly cause his death as V had 'almost recovered from the gunshot wound'. In this case, the doctors caused V's death by becoming an intervening act and giving V palpably wrong treament when he would have survived.

D would not be found guilty of muder, but may be found guilty of another crime such as attempted murder. 

Case Facts: D picked up a female hitchhiker while driving. D started to make sexual advances on V, who jumped out of the car and broke her leg. 

But For test: But for D making advances on V, V would not have jumped out og the car and broken her leg. 

In this situation, V's actions were both reasonable and foreseeable meaning they do not break the chain of causation. D is still a significant cause of the consequence and would therefore still be found guilty. 

Case Facts: D picked up V who was a male hitchhiker. Along the way. D asjed if he could see V's wallet. V thought he was about to be robbedm so dived out of the moving car. V hit is head and died. 

But For test: But for D asking to see V's wallet, V would not have jumped out of the car, hit his head and died. 

In this case, V's actions were both unreasonable and unforeseeable and so become an intervening act. This means it breaks the chain of causation and the victim becomes responsible for his own death. 

"The nature of the threat is key when considering if the response was reasonable or foreseeable" 

Case Facts: D stabbed V who was a Jehovah's Witness. When V was taken to hospital, V was told that they would need a blood transfusion. V refused this operation on religious grounds, and V eventually bled to death.

THIN SKULL RULE: If the victim has a characteristic that makes them more vulnerable (eg- an allergy, injury) D will still be liable and it does not break the chain of causation. 

So, eventhough V refused the treatment that would have saved her life, the Thin Skull rule protects her choice and ensures that it does not break the chain of causation. This means V will always be liable. 

In Mohan, the judge said:

"A decision (or aim) to bring about the intended consequence, no matter whether the accused wanted that consequence of his act or not"

Case Facts: D's baby was crying and D lost his temper; he threw his baby towards the pram which was five feet away, but the baby hit the wall instead and died. 

The test for Oblique intention is about Virtual Certainty and the case must answer two questions; 

• Was the consequence of D's actions Virtually Certain?
• Did D realise that the consequence was virtually certain? 

FOR EXAMPLE: D's direct intention was to make the baby quiet, but because he threw the baby into a pram five feet away it was virtually certain that the baby would hit the wall, and D realised there was virtual certainty for that consequence, D would have oblique intention and be found guilty. 

Case Facts: D went into a building and ripped the gas meter from the wall in order to steal the money inside. Unknown to D, this caused the gas to spread to a neighbouring property, where the gas harmed V.

Recklessness is the most basic level of Mens Rea used for the less serious crimes. 

You use the Three R's test: D Realises there was a Risk (involved in his conduct) but continues with the conduct Regardless. 

D's direct intention was to steal the money from the gas meter, not to cause damage to it or a person. It would be hard to prove oblique intention as he was unaware of how a gas meter worked- D thought he would be able to just steal the money, he didn't know it would mess with the gas going to the neighbouring houses. 

Case Facts: D was in a pub one evening and got into an argument with X. D took off his belt to try and hit X with it. D swung the belt and hit X, but the belt also hit V (who was standing nearby). 

TRANSFERRED MALICE: When D intended to commit a crime against one person, but actually commits it against someone else, the mens rea can be transferred from the intended victim to the actual victim, meaning D is still guilty. 

In this case D would argue that he did not intend to hit V, however he would still be found guilty as the mens rea and can be transferred from his intended victim to his actual victim. 

Case Facts: D threw a stone at a group of people to try to hit them. He missed the group and smashed a shop window. D was charged with criminal damage. 

If the defendant performs the actus reus of one crime whilst possessing the mens rea of another crime, then the defendant will not be guilty. 

As D had no intention to do any criminal damage, the malice will not be transferred, so D will be found not guilty. 

Case Facts: D and his gang kidnapped the victim with a plan to kill him. They took V to a cliff and beat him with bats until they thought he was dead. They then disposed of his 'body' over the cliff. In reality, V was alive when he was thrown, and later died of exposure to the elements (hunger, cold, thirst etc.). 

Mens Rea to kill: Kidnapping and beating with bats. 

What ultimately killed: Exposure to the elements.

Why did they not have Mens Rea to kill at this point: They thought he was already dead so didn't think about the elements killing him.

THERE IS NO NATURAL COINCIDENCE HERE but he would be found guilty as kidnapping + beating + body disposal means that mens rea is transferred. 

Case Facts: D accidentally ran over a police officer's foot. When the police officer told him to move, D refused and left the car on V's foot. 

What hurt V: Running over his foot.

Why did D have no mens rea: It was unintentional

When did D have mens rea: when he refused to move.

This is known as a Continuing Act: where Actus Reus occurs before the Mens Rea, but the AR continues until the MR appears. 

This means D would be found guilty.